Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, not statistically, but directly. Moral standards that are given to us by God cannot be externally verified (or can they?), so yes, it's possible that all those things could be evil and we'd have no way of finding out. Beyond that, the claim that "God is good" loses all meaning.So you're suggesting that when we feed a hungry person, take in the fatherless children, humble ourselves to God and admit we did wrong, we could be doing evil?
I suppose statistically, anything is possible.
No, not statistically, but directly. Moral standards that are given to us by God cannot be externally verified (or can they?), so yes, it's possible that all those things could be evil and we'd have no way of finding out. Beyond that, the claim that "God is good" loses all meaning.
The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to attack the premise that absolutely objective morals exist and God is the only source of useful moral standards, but I guess those are rejected by Christian teachings. Are there any other possible "escape routes", so to speak?
Lying is one possible way to look at it, though not what I was suggesting. We're simply stuck in a position where "good" is defined by God who has the final say and there's no way that we can double-check that this "good" is actually good, so saying that "God is good" is quite meaningless.So you are suggesting that God may be lying to us. But we have no way of knowing, nor do we have any reason to believe he would.
No, not statistically, but directly. Moral standards that are given to us by God cannot be externally verified (or can they?), so yes, it's possible that all those things could be evil and we'd have no way of finding out. Beyond that, the claim that "God is good" loses all meaning.
The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to attack the premise that absolutely objective morals exist and God is the only source of useful moral standards, but I guess those are rejected by Christian teachings. Are there any other possible "escape routes", so to speak?
I am still not grasping the logic. If God told us evil was good then we would be calling unloving toward others a good thing and would be reasonable in assuming God is unloving.elman, I can tell that you're not quite grasping the logic yet.
According to the Christians our ability to recognize 'good' comes from God. God could've told us to recognize evil as 'good' and we'd never know any better. "But of course we can recognize good and evil!", you may cry. Except that, of the Christian premise is correct, it logically follows that we can't. All we can do is follow the moral compass that God gave us and assume that it's good.
I don't. I said that throwing that premise away is what's rejected by Christian teachings.Why do you see objective morals with God as the source, as being rejected by Christian teachings?
What if loving others is actually evil, but God told us it is good? How would we find out?I am still not grasping the logic. If God told us evil was good then we would be calling unloving toward others a good thing and would be reasonable in assuming God is unloving.
We wouldn't, but God would be evil, in that case, as we now understand evil. That is why I think it is reasonable to assume God is good, because He has written on our hearts that loving others is good.I don't. I said that throwing that premise away is what's rejected by Christian teachings.
What if loving others is actually evil, but God told us it is good? How would we find out?
Let us start with the common Christian assumption that our sense of morals is given to us by God.
Assuming that is true, then it means were essentially pre-programmed to define an arbitrary set of behaviors as good. It then makes no sense to declare with absolute certainty that God is good if our moral programming came from God himself. God couldve told us to accept evil as good, and we wouldnt know better.
Given this scenario, good is reduced to merely because God says so instead of actually being good. What we think of as good might be real good, or it might not be. In fact, there might not be such a thing as real good as we commonly know it at all if it's simply dependent on how God is feeling at different times. Wed never know.
This is simply not true. If you assume that our sense of morals was given to us by God, then that sense is not arbitrary (up to the individual), it is objective, what is arbitrary is our or choice to follow this set of moral values and duties or to defy them.
We are not "pre programmed to define", we are pre programmed with the definition. So it makes non-sense NOT to declare with absolute certainty that God is perfectly good given what our intuitive values are under the assumtion that he gave them to us.
Could you rephrase that? And repeat to me what I said in your own words so I know you actually understood it?We wouldn't, but God would be evil, in that case, as we now understand evil. That is why I think it is reasonable to assume God is good, because He has written on our hearts that loving others is good.
Lying is one possible way to look at it, though not what I was suggesting. We're simply stuck in a position where "good" is defined by God who has the final say and there's no way that we can double-check that this "good" is actually good, so saying that "God is good" is quite meaningless.
And if we have no way of knowing, it naturally follows that we don't have any reason to believe that he would. Just like how we don't have any reason to believe he wouldn't, either.
By suggesting we don't need to check if "good is actually good", you seem to be implying one of these things: either that God is not lying to us, or that there is no being or power that *truly* defines what good is, and that this is higher than God. We have no reason to reject either idea according to what we know about God, rather what we know about God gives us no reason to believe he is in fact the highest and he does not lie. So both are nothing but pure conjecture.By suggesting we even need to check if "good is actually good", you seem to be implying one of these things: either that God is lying to us, or that there is a being or power that *truly* defines what good is, and that this is higher than God. We have no reason to believe either idea according to what we know about God, rather what we know about God gives us reason to believe he is in fact the highest and he does not lie. So both are nothing but pure conjecture.
So it works for you Christians when you dream up baseless conjectures in favor of your religion, but it's not when the tables are turned and things go the other way?Very mature of you, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. All that we know about God tells us he is the highest authority, he creates all things, that he is good and loving and does not lie. If you were to say God simply doesn't exist, you have something, but to suggest He exists but is not the highest and does not decide morality is based on nothing, and is conjecture. It's no less ridiculous than to suggest we are all butterflies dreaming that we are men. What you've done is the very thing Atheists so often accuse Christians of doing: making claims without a scrap of evidence.
Well, that's great. You mean to say that after spamming my thread full of useless posts, you don't even know what I'm asking?
My question is this. I start with the Christian premise that our only useful moral standard comes from God. It then follows that the statement "God is good" doesn't tell us anything meaningful, because there's no point in judging X using standards as defined by X. It doesn't give us any useful information.
Is it then possible for us to determine whether God really is good? If so, how?
Which doesn't answer the question either. Going back to my robot analogy; if I as a programmer define murder as good in my robot's programming, how would the robot possibly know otherwise?X is not being compared to X. X defines X.
The reason you do not see an answer is because you see "good" as a standard that can exist outside of what our "programmer" as given us.Which doesn't answer the question either. Going back to my robot analogy; if I as a programmer define murder as good in my robot's programming, how would the robot possibly know otherwise?
I know you Christians accept your religion's teachings without question, but if I was looking for blind faith as an answer there wouldn't have been the need to ask questions in the first place, so I'm hoping for something better than blind faith and baseless assertions here.
Could you rephrase that? And repeat to me what I said in your own words so I know you actually understood it?
Okay.You said: "What if loving others is actually evil, but God told us it is good? How would we find out?"
I responded we would not find out, but then what we now know to be good would be evil and we would assume God is evil as we now understand evil to be--unloving.
So it works for you Christians when you dream up baseless conjectures in favor of your religion, but it's not when the tables are turned and things go the other way?
How more hypocritically deluded can you possibly get?
If there's no way we can verify God's claims, then it makes every sense to entertain the possibility that He's lying and to explore the question. What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence. That's how things work. Besides, I'm not even making claims, I'm merely asking a question. How do you know your God is good?
It can, or it can not. Part of the purpose of my question is to find out if we can determine which is it.The reason you do not see an answer is because you see "good" as a standard that can exist outside of what our "programmer" as given us.
And neither benchmark appears to be useful for determining whether God is good, which means that "God is good" is an empty conclusion.Someone has to set a bench mark for our understanding of that term. We only have two options. We can set it or God can set it, and I have explained the differences between the two.
In short, your answer is: "Just take God's word for it."Good even your understanding of the term is based on what God has given us. If you seek the definition of that term then you must turn to the origins of that word. If you seek a good beyond that then know that what you find will be based in your own righteousness and will not be a "standard" of any kind.
Except that the Bible, too, comes from God. I'm not trying to discern God. I'm trying to verify God, at least in the morals department. There's a big difference.Here's where you're wrong. Our knowledge of God is not baseless, it is based on the Bible. Which is valid because your question doesn't argue against God's existence, it presupposes he exists and then asks how we can verify his morality. All that we know of God and his morality comes from the Bible, to use any other kind of source outside of it is purely shooting in the dark. If we're talking about the God of the Bible, it follows that you use the Bible to discern things about him.
Our knowledge of God is based purely on what he tells us, and nothing we can actually verify. The implications are irrelevant to those who wish to simply accept the current state of things as they are and not probe further for fear of finding out the truth, but it's obviously relevant to me. Why else do you think I'm asking it?And the question implies good is something apart from God, or that God might be lying to us. I'm answering you in regards to these implications. We cannot verify if God is "actually good", but that is irrelevant because based on what we know about God, we have absolutely no reason to believe those implications are true based on our knowledge of Him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?